About your Search

20120901
20120930
STATION
WHUT (Howard University Television) 14
KQED (PBS) 7
WETA 7
CSPAN 6
CSPAN2 6
CNN 4
KRCB (PBS) 4
CNNW 3
MSNBCW 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 61
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 61 (some duplicates have been removed)
president of the united states bill clinton in conversation with me and my colleague at cbs nora o'donnell. >> rose: do you think this election the president has said that change has to come from outside rather than in washington, that this election has the possibility of producing a change that will be able to overcome gridlock. >> i don't think it to the only has the possibility, i think it almost certainly will. and let me explain why. i think the president's going to win but let's assume governor romney won. if he wins, that almost certainly means the republicans will hold on to the house and it will be about 50/50 in the senate, more or less the way it is now. you can't filibuster a budget. it's the only thing that doesn't require 60 votes in the senate to pass o as opposed to 51. so a lot of the policymaking will be pushed into the budget and he'll just have to pick up one or two people on that. if you assume that he is going to do what he said he's going to do, i think a lot of his priorities will be enacted. and i think it will be bad on the budget side, as i said. includin
not accept what happened from some of the citizens of the united states who offended the prophet mohammed-- peace be upon him. there was also somebody who wanted to burn the koran and this is something we do not accept at all. so the demonstrations were an expression of a high level of anger and a rejection of what is happening and the u.s. embassy represents the symbol of america as a people and government so people, the demonstrators, had a loud voice and as a government, it's our responsibility as the government of egypt we protected the embassy. we do not condone any attack against any embassies or any guests. this is a part of our principles and culture and what our religion orders us to do. >> rose: so the united states government and egyptian government are friends, not enemies? >> ( translated ): we are not enemies, of course. >> rose: you're our friends? >> ( translated ): for sure we are friends. >> rose: allies? >> the u.s. president said otherwise. >> rose: i know he did. but i'm asking the egyptian president. do you consider the united states an ally? >> ( translated ): this
the united states government and egyptian government are friends, not enemies? >> ( translated ): we are not enemies, of course. >> rose: you're our friends? >> ( translated ): for sure we are friends. >> rose: allies? >> the u.s. president said otherwise. >> rose: i know he did. but i'm asking the egyptian president. do you consider the united states an ally? >> ( translated ): this is depending on the definition of an ally. we have a real partnership in the interest and we want to achieve the interest of the world and to participate in many issues-- diplomatic, political, economical-- exchange of expertise in several areas. so the understanding of an ally as a part of a military alliance this is not existing right now. but if you mean by ally, partner and special diplomatic relationship and cooperation we are that ally. >> rose: president morsi for the hour. next. >> tonight a special edition of charlie rose. >> rose: mohamed morsi won an historic election this june to become the fifth president of egypt. he is the first civilian to hold this title. two years ago it would have been
to you. i wish to greet all of the wonderful people of the united states and all of the people who will see your program. at the end of the day, if you do have personal animosity towards me, don't transfer that on to the rest of the people of the united states. we love the people of the united states and they also wish in return peace and stability for all of the world. >> you've come here to make a speech to the united nations. many are saying it's the most important speech of your life. do you feel that? >> translator: no. this is not the most important speech of my life, but i do believe that every moment of a human being's life are the most important for that human being, because they will not come back. if you lose today, today's gone for good. one day of your life is gone. therefore, every moment counts, every moment is important. i have been coming to the united nations general assembly for eight years now, seeking progress and friendly relations with all nations, and the objective is still the same. >> the reason that people think it's so important is that they believe that
of the united states in our region encourages extremism. >> surprising. how would you feel if one of your children dated a jew? and heated. especially when i asked him about basic human rights for gays. >> do you really believe that someone is born homosexual? >> yes, i absolutely believe that. yes. >> i'm sorry. let me ask you this. do you believe that anyone has given birth through homosexuality? homosexuality ceases procreation. >>> good evening. welcome to a special edition of "piers morgan tonight." looking live at new york city, home of the united nations. world leaders from 193 countries are gathering for the annual meeting of the general assembly. president mahmoud ahmadinejad will address the meeting on wednesday. he had blistering words at israel today. more on that in a moment. he took aim at the security council on the subject of iran's nuclear program. >> translator: we have business that some members of the security council with little rights have chosen silence with regard to the nuclear warheads of the fake regime while at the same time they impede scientific progress of o
know one thing about him. he does not fail. let's hear it for the next president of the united states. [applause] >> thanks, sweetie. that's quite an introduction here. i got how many introductions tonight? anyone else want to offer an introduction? thank you. this really is a critical time for the country, and i think a time of choice. elections are always about choice. i think the choice is in more stark relief than most electrics. i think in part because of where the country is. i think when you have $16 trillion in debt, when you see places like europe facing fiscal calamity or crisis, while you recognize these are critical times, what you have in this country, 23 million americans out of work, 23 million. when half the kids coming out of college can't find work or work consistent with an education that includes college, think about that? this is america. what's happened? and so the president and i offered two very distinct paths. his path is one which has been not just spoken about, we've seen it. we don't have to guess what his path might look like or what he would do, because h
for the country. against perceived internal and external dangerous forces. israel, united states, first at the regime. vicious than enough of that over the decades and afterward he went from credence to that notion, that paranoia. so the syrian population made this bargain with the regime that they would give freedoms in return for stability and security, especially with the examples of instability in lebanon and iraq on their borders. and so, that was the mandate. that was legitimacy for the asides to rule. they lost that because of the policy and bashar al-assad unleashing the dogs in terms of cracking down the opposition. his policy in instability and insecurity. so he no longer has legitimacy. in a broader sense he is solid. whether he stays in power, he'll never have the mandate to rule again and legitimacy he once enjoyed. >> host: are western policymakers assuming his fall is inevitable? and should they? >> guest: that's interesting. i've been contacted by media outlets wanting a quarter to an obituary for about a year now. every time the call, i say it's premature because the re
. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, september 21, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable richard blumenthal, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader smed. mr. reid: i had move to proceed to calendar number 504. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 504, s. 3525, a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fish, and shooting and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the next hour will be equally divided between the two leader leaders who are their designees.
. the impasse is just one of the many strains on relations between russia and the united states. iran is another is the dis trust over nato's defense shield. earlier this month the u.s. agency of the international development to lead russia. i'm pleased to have sergey lavrov back at this table, welcome. >> thank you very much, nice to be back. >> rose: u.s.-russia relations. >> yes, i believe we agree that these relations should be promoted. when president obama came to the whitehouse, he and his team assessed the relationship between moscow and washington and suggested what they call the reset of those relations which we supported. and i believe that since then, we have been having understanding between us, between moscow and russia, that the really mutually beneficial partnership in the interest of the russian and american people in the interest of international relations given the importance of the two countries can be based on equal, mutually respectful, mually beneficial relatiohip. and on that route, we achieved quite a lot. i would be incomplete if i don't mention that there are problems
, tribal, territorial and international partners and members of this committee. while the united states has made significant progress since the 9/11 attacks, we know threats from terror persist and continually evolve. we faced direct threats from al qaeda. we face growing threats of other foreign-based terrorist groups, which are inspired by al qaeda ideology, such as hq ap and al-shabaab. we must address threats that are homegrown as well as those that originate abroad. is threats are not limited to any one individual, group or ideology and as we have seen taxes employed by terrorists can be as simple as a homemade bomb or as sophisticated as the biologic threat or coordinated cyberattack. while we deal with a number of threats and threat actors at any given time, three areas merit special sustained attention. the first is aviation. christmas day 2000 plot, the october 2010th air cargo thread in the aqa peapod earlier this year would have targeted a u.s. bound airliner with explosives made clear that commercial aviation remains a target. terrace, especially aqap continue to seek ways to ci
an address by his excellency, felipe calderon, president of the united mexican states. . [no audio] [no audio] >> on behalf of the general assembly, i have the honor to welcome to the united nations, his excellency felipe calderon hinojosa, president of the united mexican state to address the assembly. [applause] >> send your president take -- -- mr. president and head of state and ladies and gentlemen -- out of conviction and as a result of history, mexico is a strategic ally of the united nations. we were one of the founding countries of the united nations and as a founding country, we fully share its fundamental precepts, the precepts of our great organization. for me, this will be the last time i will be attending as the president of mexico. it will be the last time i attended the general assembly of the united nations. over the past six years, my country has taken part in very different fora to pave the way for you and initiatives. we have endeavored to strengthen the u n and make it the main body for dialogue and peace and for security and for the application of international law and, i
-- the world of nation-state, those independent units that are truly sovereign and do not depend or take orders from anywhere else. the west can no longer do what it assumed it could do for its citizens. it needs to reach out for help. so you have got this system living in an uneasy coexistence with this globalize the world, and you say, "are we losing power?" though the very nature of power is different now than it used to be. you all in your textbooks say, cassette and these are the elements of national power -- economy, this, that, and the other" -- "these are the elements of national power -- economy, this, that, and the other," but it is much more complicated now. >> i would add that the concept of what makes up national security has changed. it is a much broader field now. you have to deal with economic issues. you have to deal with cybersecurity. you have to deal with a world that is largely asymmetric. as we play it back on the 20th century, which was not that long ago, you almost yearn for the ordered ways of the 20th century. we had essentially a bipolar world, two different ideologie
between the united states and israel. >> reporter: the white house would not say if the two leaders talked about the so-called red line, which of course is a key issue. and no specifics on how they will stop iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. but they did agree to "continue their regular consultations on this issue." wolf. >> dan lothian reporting from the white house. thank you. mitt romney also spoke by phone today with the prime minister. the call came while romney was at the philadelphia airport after making several campaign stops in pennsylvania. that's a state most political experts don't think he'll win. but as cnn's national political correspondent jim acosta's reporting, romney seems to have some other ideas. jim's joining us right now. what's he saying? what's going on in pennsylvania, jim? >> reporter: wolf, you're right. mitt romney did predict he's going to win the state of pennsylvania come november. but even though his campaign has mainly been a focus on fixing the nation's economy, mitt romney in recent days has been stepping up his attacks on the president on the issue
is a big thing that iran knows and israel knows and the rest of the world knows that the united states is not going to let iran get a weapon or capability of getting a weapon. >> first of all, i think there's a balance. you need to strike a balance. what many including governor romney and congressman ryan and others around the world have said you have to be specific about this capability point. that you have to be able to signal to the iranians and the world that just building the weapon or getting close to building the weapon, is not the red line. having the tools at their disposal, that they would be easily assembled is a big problem and must be stopped because if they have the tools to assemble a weapon, easily assemble a weapon, it will have the impact that the iranian leadership wants. it will enable them to establish some set of region in the back their terror proxy operations through hezbollah and hamasimpum to just put pressure on friends and adversaries of ours and that's unacceptable and drawing that line does not mean you have to say at this specific moment at this specific
to millions suffering from hiv aids. second is to foster a substantial united states strategic interests. perhaps military or diplomatic or economic. third is another purpose and one that i think has to receive much more attention and higher priority. in a romney administration and that is aid that elevates people and brings about lasting change in communities and nations. here is an example. a lot of americans including myself are troubled by developments in the middle east. syria has witnessed the killing of tens of thousands of people. the presidents of egypt is a member of the muslim brotherhood. our ambassador to libya was assassinated in a terrorist attack. iran is moving toward nuclear weapons capability. we somehow feel we are at the mercy of events rather than shaping events. i am often asked why. what can we do about it? to ease the suffering and enter and the hate and violence? religious extremism is part of a problem but that is not the whole story. the population of the middle east is very young particularly in comparison to the population of the developed nations. typically
must address the issue. he says israel is in discussions with the united states regarding the path forward. he pushed for a red line to stop iran, which he says will have what it needs to build a nuclear weapon by next summer. of course, iran has claimed their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. the fox report's chief correspondent is work the united nations today. jonathan, prime minister binyamin netanyahu is portraying this essentially as a fight between good and evil. >>jonathan: he absolutely put iran in the evil bracket. he said the regime is essentially the face of radical islam and the iranian regime would like to return the world to medieval times and the rest of the world is aware that iran has been a global sponsor of terrorism. to the delegates inside the general assembly, he put a simple question. i ask you, given this record of iranian agression without nuclear weapons, imagine iranian aggression with nuclear weapons. imagine their long-range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, their terror networks armed with atomic bombs. who among you would feel safe
further monetary policy to boost the united states economy. after last friday's disappointing labor report there is a growing call for a robust response from the central bank which is the fed, financial markets have rallied with the expectation of a third round of bond buying known as cuan tative easing. but that option is controversial with the election two months away. joining me from washington david leonhardt, washington bureau chief of the "new york times". in 2011 he won a pulitzer prize rhis columns on the u.s. economy. i'm pleased to have him back on this program. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: so what might the fed do and what consequences might happen? >> well, the fed is now talking about doing a version of something it has already done a couple timesment people may have heard the phrase q e3 to refer to what this is n technical terms that is quantitative easing 3. let's skip the technical terms, in essence it would buy up assets. in the course of buying up assets it would try to reduce long-term interest rate short trem interest rates are already essentily at zero, the fed mov
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 61 (some duplicates have been removed)